1st January 2004, 12:31 AM
1st January 2004, 12:34 AM
1st January 2004, 01:52 AM
JPEG cannot really be used for evaluation because JPEG is a lossy format, even when high resolution shots are used for comparsion.
Originally Posted by Azure
Just bringing up a point.
Last edited by mervlam; 1st January 2004 at 01:54 AM.
1st January 2004, 01:17 PM
1st January 2004, 08:28 PM
Actually, it can.
Originally Posted by mervlam
For starters, look at the above comparison and tell me that you cannot make a meaningful evaluation from it. And yet that's exactly how bad alleged pictures from a lens currently in the spotlight are.
Secondly, there shouldn't be major problems at all using JPG to evaluate images as long as compression is not excessive and the compression is equal. This is because JPG works primarily on the basis that the human eye responds less to colour change than it does to visible detail change. So it compresses colour over losing detail/sharpness, so the original detail/sharpness of the image should still remain until compression gets ridiculous. What does get introduced are JPG artifacts, but this is easily distinguishable from original detail/sharpness, so it shouldn't prove an impediment.
Thirdly, you shouldn't be trying to evaluate colour from JPGs at all, not without a strictly colour controlled environment from capture through to output.
Fourth, if you have 13Mb to play around with an your web browser displays it or you have a copy of Photo Desk, I would be glad to let you have a copy of the original of the above so you can draw your own conclusions. Or anyone else for that matter.
1st January 2004, 08:31 PM
You're welcome. Yeah, you said it not me, obvious, yet there are lots of people on the Internet, and even some on this forum, who show people low res JPGs as evidence of lens quality, and lead many newbies and inexperienced photographers into false conclusions. Not necessarily that the conclusion is false, but that it wasn't reached via proper steps.
Originally Posted by Watcher
No, you're right that not every JPG engine is created equal, that's why for my workflow with some cameras I don't bother shooting anything other than JPG. And with some I only ever shoot RAW. Some cameras are good enough to handle the JPG transformation to a very good level, others less so.
1st January 2004, 09:02 PM
I see. So if I am thinking of buying a lens and want to evaluate its image quality, I should do so using at least a full-sized image (say 6 megapixels) instead of a web-sized picture, which essentially tells me nothing about the lens quality...
1st January 2004, 09:04 PM
What's required is just a 100% crop, not the full sized image.
1st January 2004, 09:08 PM
1st January 2004, 09:12 PM
What's required is a GOOD 100% crop, and you need a few of them, one will not suffice. Ideally you need a full res image, but yes, selective 100% crops do a good job. But one thing that a web-sized image will tell you that a 100% crop is unlikely to is anything about lens distortion, although selective 100% crops should cover coma, chromatic aberration, sharpness, performance in corners, edges and centre, light fall off (you need comparison swaths for this), low contrast and high contrast performance.
Originally Posted by Zerstorer
If viewing a digital file it's probably also a good idea to keep in mind what camera was used and have a yardstick to judge by. But in general, all my cameras fall short of the quality capable by all of my lenses.
2nd January 2004, 12:55 AM
I fully agree with Jed ^^^
Of course, the best is if pictures taken and selected without bias show case the strength and weakness of a lens. The point is to isolate the camera from the lens itself. The camera should provide as little alteration or at least, unbias information as possible. The only exception is of couse, when the said lens can only be used on a body but even then, that means that in future, it has to be reevaluated again when another body can make use of it.
Eg the only EF-S lens currently on sale.
Many think that JPEG is the be all and end all of a lossy compression of a bitmap. This is not even technically true: JPEG is just a file format; the encoding is actually JFIF. In JPEG200 format, it uses either one of the following encoding method: JFIF (FFT-based), the wavelet-based and even a lossless codec!
Coming back to JPEG/JFIF, the encoding engine follows a standard. However, the quality differs in terms of speed, quality, etc. There are parameters to use to balance (or compromise) between quality and speed.
Coming back to the original topic of lens evaluation and JPEG/JFIF, the main issue is this: a JFIF file will regardless of implementation, make a image more soft. That is why it is a lossy compression in the first place. There are other issues as well.
The best way, IMO, is to use good selective 100% crop to showcase the strength and weakness and publish it in PNG format. This lossless, 24 (but can go up to 32)-bit format can be viewed by IE6 and the NS 6 and above IIRC. Most people don't even know that it exist!
Last edited by Watcher; 2nd January 2004 at 01:00 AM.
2nd January 2004, 04:10 AM
Good points made, learned something new from people who have first hand experiences. My personal experience is JPEG compression (Super) from my G5 is near or almost as near to Raw->Tiff conversion in terms of quality on Photoshop. But I shoot Raw exclusively to learn more about editing of photos in case I need to salvage one some day.
PNG has no compression (or lossless format?), same or near the same as Tiff? Not sure about that, needs to read up more since I am not a photographer/designer in practise, rather a web programmer.
Anyway, my practice on the web is not to believe in anything other people say. Just go out and find out the truth, which may be 180 degrees in difference. A lot of properganda is found, from young kids who make statements without thinking, and refusing to accept the true sometimes.
2nd January 2004, 05:13 AM
You should then know of PNG . It was created as an alternative to GIF when part of the file format was claimed not to be royalty free. So the whole group (W3C ?) decided that for the web, a new format that can do a lot of non-lossy stuff is needed. Why non-lossy? There is already JPEG/JFIF. So they instead made it a replacement for GIF which can only have 1) 256 (8-bit) colors only 2) 1-bit transparency, etc. PNG can do a lot more...
Originally Posted by theITguy
2nd January 2004, 10:09 AM
Wise man speaking.
Originally Posted by theITguy